Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

A literature review was conducted to identify and summarize
findings relating to commercial truck and bus driver distrac-
tion research conducted thus far. The literature reviewed in
this task consisted of reports and analyses available from aca-
demic, government, and industry sources. The review was
conducted primarily through Internet searches of online data-
bases, publications, and other industry resources. The reports
identified have been summarized and are described in the
following sections:
â¢ The nature of distracted driving.
â¢ Driver tasks unique to professional drivers.
â¢ Countermeasure technologies and their effectiveness.
â¢ Operational strategies and recommended practices.
The primary focus of this review was to examine and fur-
ther understand driver distraction and its impact on commer-
cial vehicle safety. Because available truck and bus technology
capabilities have been changing dramatically since the mid-
1990s, the literature cited herein was published since that time.
LITERATURE REVIEW METHODOLOGY
Literature searches were performed using websites, aca-
demic databases, books, trade press publications, and arti-
cles. The following databases were used to conduct the
reviews:
â¢ Transportation Research Information Database (TRID):
The largest online bibliographic database of transporta-
tion research, containing more than 900,000 records of
published research.
â¢ Business Source Premier: Features the full text for more
than 2,200 journals. Full text is provided back to 1965,
and searchable cited references back to 1998.
â¢ LexisNexis: Provides access to many popular articles
as well as some scholarly works. There is also access to
congressional records, court decisions, and government
statistical reports.
These databases were searched using a variety of topic-related
key words and phrases, often in combinations to improve
focus. Key words included commercial motor vehicles, truck-
ing, motor coaches, commercial drivers, safety, safety man-
agement, risk management, operations management, driver
6
distraction, driver tasks, driver workload, distraction counter-
measures, safety culture, safety climate, crash reduction, driver
training, and driver supervision.
NATURE OF DISTRACTED DRIVING
A wide range of studies have addressed distracted driving
and it continues to be a very active research topic. Studies of
most relevance to this project are summarized here for the
general driver population; the next section addresses commer-
cial vehicle drivers specifically. The issues can be grouped
into the following topics.
Detailed Definition of Distracted Driving
Pettitt et al. (2005) developed a comprehensive definition of
distraction that accounts for all key components. In this def-
inition, driver distraction occurs:
â¢ When a driver is delayed in the recognition of informa-
tion necessary to safely maintain the lateral and longitu-
dinal control of the vehicle (the driving task) (Impact).
â¢ Owing to some event, activity, object, or person, within
or outside the vehicle (Agent).
â¢ When a device that compels or tends to induce the driverâs
shifting attention away from fundamental driving tasks
(Mechanism).
â¢ By compromising the driverâs auditory, biomechanical,
cognitive, or visual faculties or combinations thereof
(Type).
Problem ExtentâHow Does Distracted Driving
Relate to Crash Risk?
McEvoy et al. (2005) examined crash data for cell phone use
before a crash and found that crash likelihood was four times
greater if drivers had used their phones in the minutes before
a crash. Backer-GrÃ¸ndahl and Sagberg (2009) noted that,
based on more recent crash data, driver distraction plays a
role in between 8% and 25% of crashes. ZoomSafer (2011a)
conducted a general survey of 500 business managers and
noted that, although 32% of all companies surveyed have had
instances of crashes linked to driver distraction, trucking had
a higher occurrence (between 41% and 53% of companies)
of distraction-related crashes.
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW

7Traditional Distraction versus Electronic Devices
Backer-GrÃ¸ndahl and Sagberg (2009) factored in exposure
rates to determine the relative crash risk of various types of
distraction. Looking at billboards, searching for addresses,
and moving objects in automobiles were identified as having
the highest relative risk. Molino et al. (2009) reviewed liter-
ature addressing the effects of electronic billboards and found
a 5 to 1 ratio of studies showing negative effects. Based on a
driver survey, NHTSA (2010) identified the most common
forms of distraction to be talking to passengers, radios/music,
eating and drinking, and using a cell phone (in that order).
Klauer et al. (2010) analyzed naturalistic driving data from
the 100-car study to analyze the crash risk of simple, moderate,
and complex secondary tasks. Although simple tasks had no
effect, moderate tasks such as talking and listening on a hand-
held device increased crash risk by a factor of 1.3. Complex
tasks such as dialing a hand-held device increased risk by a fac-
tor of 2.1. Another survey asked drivers to assess the degree to
which distraction relates to crash involvement. The results
were found to have some consistency with an analysis of the
100-car data: 30% of the time a situation outside the vehicle
was responsible for the distraction, whereas objects inside the
car were the cause 20% of the time. Among other factors, cell
phone use was responsible for 2% of the distractions.
Rakauskas and Ward (2005) examined the level of driver
distraction associated with cell phone use, alcohol impair-
ment, and in-vehicle tasks (such as pushing a button), and
found that the particular in-vehicle tasks selected were more
distracting than the cell phone conversations. Royal (2003)
describes a NHTSA survey of distracting behaviors across
4,010 drivers. Looking for an object inside the car was the
most common answer; only 2% of the responses dealt with
technology, noted as being primarily radio. For participants
involved during in a crash in the previous five years, only
0.6% attributed the cause to cell phone use. Cades et al.
(2011) cites multiple sources to argue that eyes-on-road dis-
tractions impair the driver, whether they relate to electronic
devices or conversations with passengers.
When Do Drivers Choose to Engage in
Distracting Behaviors?
Lerner et al. (2008) examined when drivers are willing to take
a risk and engage in nondriving-related tasks. The study
found their willingness to do this is related more to task issues
and lifestyle than driving issues, and also noted that drivers
were unlikely to plan ahead for either technology usage or
delay usage until the driving demands were relatively low.
How Does Distraction Relate to
Driving Performance?
Hancock et al. (2003) studied individuals driving on a test track
who were presented with a dual task to create a distraction.
The results showed that drivers braked later when engaged in
a distraction task; however, they also braked harder, indicat-
ing individuals in these conditions may stop sooner rather
than later when a distraction is present. However, Morgan
et al. (2011) reviewed driving performance parameters as they
relate to distraction and found there were more lane devia-
tions, less consistent and slower speeds, and poorer responses
to emergencies. The study also noted that drivers allocate part
of their cognitive resources to the secondary task, resulting in
a form of âtunnel visionâ such that they do not scan the road
scene as well. Rakauskas et al. (2004) employed a driving
simulator to assess the relationship between distraction and
three levels of conversation difficulty on a cell phone. Review-
ing speed, lateral tracking, crash avoidance, and mental work-
load it was found that speed was, on average, slower during
conversation. No significant decline in safety measures was
noted for any of the various levels of conversation difficulty;
however, the researchers concluded that this relationship
could be examined further.
Smith et al. (2005) examined a variety of visual tasks to
determine which types of visual stimuli present a threat. The
study revealed that, as the visual task complexity increased,
the inter-vehicle distance from the vehicle ahead increased;
additionally, given similar eye glance patterns of two sec-
ondary tasks, longer lasting secondary tasks present a greater
crash risk. They concluded that, assuming similar eye glance
patterns, as the time to complete a secondary task increases a
safety threat becomes more imminent.
Are Hands-Free Devices Safer Than
Hand-Held Devices?
The World Health Organization (WHO) (2011) examined a
wide range of literature to conclude that, although using a
mobile phone is detrimental to driving, it is not clear that
hands-free phones are safer. Additionally, in a review of
four experimental studies (Burns et al. 2002; Consiglio et al.
2003; Pattern et al. 2004; TÃ¶rnros and Bolling 2005, 2006)
pertaining to cell phone conversations during driving-related
activities, Ishigami and Klein (2009) generally found that
both hands-free and hand-held phones, as compared with the
experimental controls, impaired detection reaction times but
not vehicle lane keeping tasks. This meta-analysis of cell
phone research also found that, particularly with hands-free
phones, drivers slow down when conversing on a cell phone
(Ishigami and Klein 2009). Ishigami and Klein (2009) attrib-
uted this slowing effect to a compensatory behavior for main-
taining performance for keeping the vehicle in the lane. A
more inclusive meta-review of 30 experimental and epi-
demiological studies, including the 10 studies reviewed by
Ishigami and Klein (2009), found similar trends (National
Safety Council 2010). In the McEvoy et al. (2005) study,
both hands-free and hand-held phones were determined to
increase risk, with no difference found in risk depending on
the type of phone. Conversely, an examination of naturalis-
tic driving data of commercial vehicle drivers found that talk-
ing or listening on a hands-free phone (i.e., driver talking

through a headset) provided a significant protective effect
(odds ratio of 0.4), similar to the talking or listening to a cit-
izenâs band (CB) radio (odds ratio of 0.6), therefore decreas-
ing the risk of a safety-critical event (Olson et al. 2009).
Olson et al. (2009) suggested that dialing a phone requires
substantial visual attention, taking the driverâs eyes off the
forward roadway, whereas listening or talking on the phone
engages the driver and may provide an alerting mechanism
(FMCSA 2009).
The contrasting conclusions from these studies are the result
at least in part from the different approaches used to obtain
the results. The fundamental difference between Ishigami and
Klein (2009) and Olson et al. (2009) is the level of experi-
menter manipulation; where experimental studies are tightly
controlled, naturalistic studies continuously capture data from
drivers under normal driving texts without experimenter
intervention. The McEvoy et al. (2005) study interviewed
drivers who were hospitalized after a crash and researchers
examined these driversâ cell phone records to determine if
a cell phone had been used up to 10 min prior to the crash.
By contrast, Olson et al. (2009), by examining naturalistic
driving data, were able to examine the events that occurred
seconds before the safety-critical event and distinguish the
risk of the manual phone manipulation as compared with
the driverâs phone conversation.
As WHO (2011) recommends, there continues to be a
need for more research to understand the degree to which cell
phone subtasks (e.g., visual/manual demands and conversa-
tion demands) contribute to driver impairment.
How Risky Is Text Messaging While Driving?
WHO (2011) concluded that text messaging is a considerable
risk. Drews et al. (2009) used a driving simulator to show a
greatly increased crash rate from text messaging.
Section Summary
Although a few topics are clear, there remain areas that
require further research. The studies reviewed indicated a clear
link to an increased risk of being involved in safety-critical
events as a result of cell phone use while driving. Although
the degree of risk is not clear, the risk from texting and dial-
ing appears to be significantly greater. This result must be
tempered with work showing the significant risk associated
with nonphone distraction sources. Driving performance appar-
ently does change when drivers are distracted; however, the
consequences of this are not yet well understood given the
contradictory results noted. Although some early research
indicated that hands-free phones are no less risky than hand-
held phones, more recent work examining naturalistic driving
data shows a protective effect in using hands-free phones.
8
Citation Summaries
Backer-GrÃ¸ndahl, A. and F. Sagberg, âRelative Crash Involve-
ment Risk Associated with Different Sources of Driver
Distraction,â presented at the First International Driver Dis-
traction and Inattention Conference, Gothenburg, Sweden,
Sep. 28â29, 2009.
The authors introduce three types of research on driver
distraction. First, there are experimental (e.g., simulator) or
naturalistic studies that show the effects of distraction on
driving behavior. Next, there are prevalence studies that use
crash databases to show that driver distraction plays a role in
between 8% to 25% of crashes. Finally, there are crash risk
studies that improve on the former by factoring in exposure
rates (i.e., how often the driver population engages in dis-
tracting behaviors).
This study took the latter approach by recruiting 4,307
crash-involved driver participants and determining relative
crash risk through quasi-induced exposure. The most fre-
quently occurring distractions were talking with passengers
and attending to children in rear seats; however, the distrac-
tions with the highest relative risk were looking at billboards
outside, searching for addresses, and moving objects inside the
car. Lower on the list were talking with passengers, attending
to children in the rear seats, and adjusting a music device or
radio tuner.
Cades, D.M., S.R. Arndt, and A.M. Kwashniak, âDriver
Distraction Is More Than Just Taking Eyes Off the Road,â
ITE Journal, July 2011, pp. 26â33.
The authors synthesize previous research to make the case
that, although eyes-off-road distraction is clearly a safety haz-
ard, distractions occurring with eyes-on-road also carry a sig-
nificant potential for driver impairment. They cite research
showing that eyes-on-road drivers when presented with dis-
tractions do not necessarily perceive or encode objects they
are looking at, are less likely to respond to traffic events, make
riskier judgments regarding gaps in traffic, and are slower to
respond to safety-critical events. Furthermore, the studies
cited show that these drivers have smaller fields of view and
thus do not scan as wide a range of the traffic scene. The types
of distractions introduced in the studies included electronic
devices as well as conversations with passengers. The authors
assert that a high cognitive workload of the type associated
with electronic in-vehicle devices may reduce the driverâs
ability to process visual information available in the road-
way environment.
Drews, F.A., H. Yazdani, C.N. Godfrey, J.M. Cooper, and
D.L. Strayer, âText Messaging During Simulated Driving,â
Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and
Ergonomics Society, Vol. 51, 2009, pp. 762â770.

9The authors used a laboratory study involving a driving
simulator to evaluate the driving performance of 40 partici-
pants engaged in a single task (i.e., driving) versus a dual task
(i.e., driving and text messaging). Participants in the dual
task experimental group took their eyes off the road an aver-
age of 5 s to engage in texting activities and were involved in
six times as many accidents as their control group counter-
parts. The texting drivers also took significantly longer to
respond to brake lights ahead and demonstrated poor forward
and lateral control of the simulator vehicle.
Although these results were in line with findings from nat-
uralistic studies, the severity of distraction effects may differ
because simulator participants are aware they are being stud-
ied in a laboratory environment, and college student partici-
pants may differ in meaningful ways from professional truck
drivers.
FMCSA, Driver Distraction in Commercial Vehicle Opera-
tions, Tech Brief, Publication No. FMCSA-RRR-09-045,
FMCSA, Washington, D.C., 2009.
This tech brief provides a summary of the Olson et al.
(2009) study.
Hancock, P.A., M. Lesch, and L. Simmons, âThe Distrac-
tion Effects of Phone Use During a Crucial Driving Maneu-
ver,â Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 35, 2003,
pp. 501â514.
In this study, dual tasks were examined where individuals
were required to respond to an in-vehicle telephone and make
stopping decisions. A total of 42 participants were included in
the study that resulted in a final sample of 36. Participants com-
pleted the driving tasks on a one-fifth-mile loop-shaped track.
A combination of distraction and stopping conditions were
presented in addition to a controlled environment as follows:
â¢ ControlâDriving only,
â¢ Distracter only,
â¢ Stopping only, and
â¢ Distracter and stopping.
Younger participants tended to approach the intersection
faster than their older peers, but there were no gender differ-
ences. In terms of brake response time, participants braked
significantly slower when a distraction task was presented.
Older drivers drove much more slowly than their younger
counterparts during a distraction. The study concluded that
the older groups as well as females tended to be more affected
by distractions than the other groups (younger and male).
Results also indicated that participants would brake harder in
the presence of a distraction, which in turn stopped the vehi-
cle sooner. Therefore, the research suggests that individuals
may indeed stop sooner rather than later when a distraction
is present.
Ishigami, Y. and R. Klein, âIs a Hands-free Phone Safer Than
a Handheld Phone?â Journal of Safety Research, Vol. 40,
No. 2, 2009.
The authors conducted a review of experimental, observa-
tional, and epidemiological studies pertaining to the use of
cell phones and driving-related activities. In most instances,
hands-free communication was found to be as hazardous (or
no less hazardous) to driving skills as using hand-held phones.
This was true in nondriving studies, simulated driving studies,
field driving studies, and epidemiological studies. In some
cases, the authors concluded that hands-free devices were
more dangerous than hand-held phones because the driver
underestimates the threat and does not attempt to counteract
potential negative effects (e.g., reaction time).
Klauer, S.G., F. Guo, J. Sudweeks, and T.A. Dingus, An
Analysis of Driver Inattention, Using a Case-crossover
Approach on 100-car Data: Final Report, Report No.
DTNH22-00-C-07007, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, Washington, D.C., 2010.
The authors analyzed the 100-Car Study database using
logistic regression to identify behaviors that increased crash
risk. They focused on three types of secondary tasks: com-
plex, moderate, and simple. Examples of simple secondary
tasks included adjusting a radio or other vehicle manufactured
devices, talking to a passenger(s) in an adjacent seat, talking
or singing with no passenger present, drinking, smoking, and
thinking. As a group, these simple secondary behaviors were
found not to increase crash risk.
Next, the authors looked at moderate secondary behaviors,
including talking and listening or other hand-held device
activities, inserting or retrieving a compact disc, reaching for
objects, grooming and other hygiene activities, eating, and
looking at something outside of the vehicle. As a group, mod-
erate secondary behaviors increased the crash risk 1.3 times,
compared with no secondary behaviors.
Finally, complex secondary behaviors included dialing a
hand-held device; locating, reaching, and answering a hand-
held device; reading; live animals or insects in the vehicle;
reaching for a moving object; and applying makeup. As a
group, drivers engaged in complex secondary tasks were
2.1 times more likely to be involved in a crash than drivers
who did not perform these tasks.
Lerner, N., J. Singer, and R. Huey, Driver Strategies for
Engaging in Distracting Tasks Using In-vehicle Technolo-
gies, Report No. HS DOT 810919, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, Washington, D.C., 2008.
Rather than conduct another study demonstrating the
link between driver distraction and safety-critical events, the
authors investigated when drivers are willing to take a risk

and engage in nondriving-related tasks. A focus group was
used to become familiarized with the types of in-vehicle
technologies commonly used, followed by an on-road study
in which drivers kept a log of how willing they would be to
engage in certain behaviors at specified points along pre-
determined routes. Findings showed that driver willingness
was associated more with task-related motivations and life-
styles than with driving-related issues such as roadway or
traffic characteristics. Drivers were also not very likely to
plan ahead for their technology use or delay use until road
conditions and driving demands were low.
McEvoy, S.P., M.R. Stevenson, A.T. McCartt, M. Wood-
ward, C. Haworth, P. Palamara, and R. Cercarelli, âRole of
Mobile Phones in Motor Vehicle Crashes Resulting in Hos-
pital Attendance: A Case-crossover Study,â BMJ, Vol. 331,
2005, pp. 1â5.
Cell phone activity was examined for defined intervals
before and after a crash. The sample consisted of 456 partic-
ipants. Researchers concluded that crash likelihood was four
times higher for participants that had used their phone within
10 min before the crash. There were no differences of crash
likelihood between gender, age, or cell phone type. Both hands-
free and hand-held cell phone use resulted in an elevated
crash risk.
Although this study found an increased crash risk associ-
ated with cell phone use, it was suggested that enforcing laws
that limit use may be difficult. Bluetooth technology has
become increasingly prevalent in newer vehicles to promote
hands-free cell phone use. However, the research in this
study did not find a difference of crash likelihood between
hands-free or hand-held devices. The presence of Bluetooth
technology may encourage more people to use cell phones
while driving thus contributing to an increase of crashes.
Molino, J.A., J. Wachtel, J.E. Farbry, M.B. Hermosillo,
and T. M. Granda, The Effects of Commercial Electronic
Variable Message Signs (CEVMS) on Driver Attention and
Distraction: An Update, Report No. FHWA-HRT-09-018,
Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., 2009.
The authors reviewed literature addressing whether com-
mercial electronic variable message sign displays (e.g., elec-
tronic billboards and digital billboards) act to distract drivers
and reduce driving safety. That is, as the outdoor advertising
industry is moving in the direction of making billboards more
attention-grabbing, is this causing drivers to substantively
shift their attention away from the road? Empirical studies
were reviewed and, although results were somewhat mixed,
there was a 5 to 1 ratio of studies finding some negative driver
safety effects as opposed to no effects of billboards.
From a mental workload perspective, it can be concluded
that drivers have a finite amount of capacity to focus on driving
plus some spare capacity (i.e., a buffer that allows drivers
10
to focus some attention on nondriving tasks). The surplus
capacity is reduced or eliminated as the driver takes on addi-
tional demands (e.g., fixed hazards such as dangerous road
layouts or transient hazards such as bad weather) and so it
makes sense to prohibit billboards or other distracters from
locations that already have known fixed hazards (e.g., sharp
turns or difficult intersections). Further research must be con-
ducted to review the effect of sign idiosyncrasies (e.g., infor-
mation density, font size, message content, and dynamic
messages) that could play a role in the severity of distraction.
The authors present a list of independent and dependent vari-
ables that could be studied, as well as the research strategies
that might be employed. Table 3 in the studyâs appendix out-
lines the associated advantages and disadvantages of the
various field and lab approaches.
Morgan, J.F., T.E. Trimble, D.S. Bowman, S. Baker, R.
Pickett, D. Murray, and G. Bergoffen, Synthesis of Literature
Relating to Cellular Telephone/Personal Digital Assistant
Use in Commercial Truck and Bus Operations, Report No.
FMCSA-RRR-11-015, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Admin-
istration, Washington, D.C., 2011.
This article reviewed four aspects of driving performance
that have empirically been shown to be harmed by driver
distraction. First, lateral control of a vehicle is impaired by
distraction, with distracted drivers experiencing more un-
intentional lane departures; greater variability in the vehicleâs
position inside the lane; and sharper, more frequent steering
wheel inputs and corrections, compared with undistracted
drivers. Second, distraction has been shown to be detrimen-
tal to longitudinal (i.e., speed) control of the vehicle, with
distracted drivers typically struggling to maintain a constant
speed; this greater variability in speed is accompanied by a
lower average speed than undistracted drivers. Third, dis-
tracted drivers have slower reaction times to unanticipated
safety-critical events and are less likely to identify these
events compared with undistracted drivers. Finally, the arti-
cle describes how workload is also negatively affected by
distraction, because distracted drivers must divide their cog-
nitive resources between required driving and extraneous
demands; as a result, distracted drivers attempt to compen-
sate by focusing almost entirely on the central visual field
ahead, as opposed to performing normal visual scanning of
the entire roadway, again increasing the odds that they will
fail to identify safety-critical events.
National Safety Council, Understanding the Distracted
BrainâWhy Driving While Using Hands-free Cell Phones
Is Risky Behavior, White Paper, 2010 [Online]. Available:
distracteddriving.nsc.org.
As cell phone usage has increased over the past 15 years,
the National Safety Council estimates that 25% of vehicle
crashes can now be attributed to cell phone use, which
amounts to 1.6 million crashes and 645,000 injuries. More
than 80% of drivers admit to talking on their cell phones

11
while operating a vehicle, whereas 18% admit to texting
while driving. To counteract this trend, more than 200 state
bills were introduced in 2009, along with an Executive Order
signed by President Obama.
The National Security Council suggests that the reason
cell phones present such a distraction is because drivers do
not realize that talking on the phone takes cognitive resources
away from the road. In addition to this cognitive explanation,
cell phones can be incrementally distracting when they cause
a driver to take his or her eyes off the road and/or hands off
the wheel. Using a hands-free device is seen as a solution by
the general public (as well as current state laws and company
policies); however, the report noted that research has accu-
mulated to demonstrate that these devices are no better (and
potentially worse) than talking on hand-held phones. The
human brain processes information sequentially and does not
multitaskâas a result, drivers encounter inattention blind-
ness (âlookingâ but not âseeingâ) when talking on the phone.
Because they are not aware of this deficit, research has found
that hands-free drivers are less likely to see high and low rel-
evant objects; visual cues; exits, red lights, and stop signs;
navigational signage; and the content of objects. These find-
ings are unique to hands-free talking compared with talking
with in-vehicle passengers. Adult passengers in the front seat
can actually have a protective effect on crash risk, because
they share awareness of the driving situation.
As a result, the authors report that cell phone users (hand-
held or hands-free) are four times more likely than nonusers
to be involved in an accident. The report suggests that wide-
spread education efforts are necessary, as well as comprehen-
sive company policies and state laws banning all cell phone
use. In addition, policies and laws will require strong
enforcement by companies and the law, respectively. Finally,
new technologies capable of blocking cell phone capabilities
are another avenue worth exploring.
NHTSA, Countermeasures That Work: A Highway Safety
Countermeasure Guide for State Highway Safety Offices,
6th ed., National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
Washington, D.C., 2011.
This guide was created as a reference to help State High-
way Safety Offices select empirically proven counter-
measures when addressing major highway safety problem
areas, including distracted and fatigued driving. The authors
begin by discussing the nature of distracted and fatigued
driving, pointing out the relative difficulty of effectively
countering these problem areas, because they are in large
part societal issues dependent on lifestyle patterns and
choices. To date, most research has centered on cell phones,
despite the prevalence and severity of other distracters. Cell
phones are likely singled out because they require the atten-
tion of multiple senses (i.e., vision: locating the phone; touch:
holding or dialing the phone; sound: listening to the party
at the other end of the phone; and speech: talking to the
other party), not to mention the cognitive capacity needed
to understand and communicate.
In 2002, NHTSA surveyed 4,010 drivers to identify the
most common forms of distraction, which included (from
most common to least common) talking to passengers, chang-
ing radio stations or looking for music, eating or drinking,
using a cell phone, dealing with children in the back seat, and
reading a map or directions.
In addition, NHTSA surveyed drivers to assess the degree
to which distracted driving contributed to crash involvement,
as seen from the survey participantâs perspective. It is noted
that survey findings were likely underreported owing to
response bias and, indeed, a follow-up study (the 100-car nat-
uralistic driving study), found that nearly 80% of the 82
recorded crashes and 65% of the 761 near crashes involved
drivers who took their eyes off the road just prior to the inci-
dent. Still, there was a degree of consistency between the nat-
uralistic study findings and NHTSAâs survey concerning
which distractions most frequently lead to safety incidents. In
both studies, roughly 30% of the time something outside the
car was responsible for the distraction, whereas objects
inside the car were responsible closer to 20% of the time. The
latter included other passengers (19% in this survey; 11% in
the naturalistic driving study) and cell phone use (2% of the
time in both studies).
Olson, R.L., R.J. Hanowski, J.S. Hickman, and J. Bocanegra,
Driver Distraction in Commercial Vehicle Operations, Report
No. FMCSA-RRR-09-042, Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration, Washington, D.C., 2009.
This study examined data from two previous naturalistic
driving studies to calculate the odds ratios and population-
attributable risk estimates for distracting tasks present in com-
mercial vehicle operations. When combined, these datasets
included 203 commercial drivers, 7 trucking fleets, and 16 fleet
locations. These data represented approximately 3 million
miles of continuously collected vehicle kinematic and video
data. From these data, there were 4,452 safety-critical events
(i.e., crashes, near-crashes, crash-relevant conflicts, and un-
intentional lane deviations) that were examined. Key findings
included:
â¢ Of these safety-critical events, 81.5% had some type of
driver distraction listed as a potential contributing factor.
â¢ Drivers were engaged in nondriving related tasks in
71% of crashes, 46% of near crashes, and 60% of all
safety-critical events.
â¢ The task âtalking or listening on a hands-free phoneâ
(i.e., driver talking through a headset) provided a signif-
icant protective effect (odds ratio of 0.4), therefore
decreasing the risk of a safety-critical event.
â¢ Tasks associated with increased risk (high odds ratios)
were associated with long eyes-off-forward-roadway
times.

More detail on this study is provided in the next section.
Pettitt, M., G. Burnett, and A. Stevens, âDefining Driver Dis-
traction,â presented at the 12th World Congress on Intelligent
Transport Systems, San Francisco, Calif., Nov. 6â10, 2005.
The authors developed a comprehensive definition of dis-
traction that accounts for all key components. In this defini-
tion, driver distraction occurs:
â¢ When a driver is delayed in the recognition of informa-
tion necessary to safely maintain the lateral and longitu-
dinal control of the vehicle (the driving task) (Impact).
â¢ As the result of some event, activity, object, or person,
within or outside the vehicle (Agent).
â¢ When something that compels or tends to induce the
driverâs shifting attention away from fundamental driv-
ing tasks (Mechanism).
â¢ By compromising the driverâs auditory, biomechanical,
cognitive, or visual faculties, or combinations thereof
(Type).
Rakauskas, M.E., L.J. Gugerty, and N.J. Ward, âEffects
of Naturalistic Cell Phone Conversations on Driving
Performance,â Journal of Safety Research, Vol. 35, 2004,
pp. 453â464.
A simulator was used to assess the relationship between
cell phone distraction and three levels of conversation diffi-
culty (none, easy, and difficult). Safety measures used in the
study consisted of:
â¢ Speed maintenance,
â¢ Lane positioning maintenance,
â¢ Crash avoidance, and
â¢ Mental workload.
When participants held conversations while driving,
results indicated more variation in acceleration and speed.
Also, the average speed traveled was slower than non-
conversation trials. However, the difficulty of cell phone
dialogue did not result in any significant decreases in safety
performance measures. It is important to note that no sig-
nificant reaction time differences were found between con-
versation groups when a hazardous event was presented
(e.g., vehicle pulling out). Researchers concluded that:
(1) the complexity of cell phone conversations while driving
could be examined further, (2) technology manufacturers
are becoming more active in reducing distractions, and
(3) policymakers could decide to focus on one driving objec-
tive (safety or convenience).
Rakauskas, M. and N. Ward, Behavioral Effects of Driver
Distraction and Alcohol Impairment, 49th Annual Human
Factors and Ergonomics Society Meeting, Orlando, Fla.
Sep. 26â30, 2005.
12
Cell phone conversations, alcohol impairment, and com-
mon in-vehicle tasks were analyzed to determine the level of
distraction associated with each. Conversations consisted of
repeating a sentence, solving a verbal puzzle, or responding
to a specific topic. In-vehicle tasks included pushing a button,
adjusting airflow, changing temperatures, and pushing CD
track buttons. Participants were assigned to either the control
(received cranberry juice) or experimental (received alcohol
and cranberry mixture) group. Blood alcohol content was
maintained at 0.08 to represent the legal limit.
Results indicated that participants engaged in cell phone
conversations or in-vehicle tasks performed worse than those
without a secondary task. The control group (no alcohol) per-
formed worse while completing the in-vehicle tasks than the
intoxicated participants without any secondary tasks. It is
important to note that participants were more distracted by
engaging in the in-vehicle tasks than conversing on the cell
phone, meaning that cell phones caused less distraction than
pushing buttons in the vehicle, adjusting airflow, changing
temperatures, or pushing CD track buttons.
Researchers suggested that banning hand-held cell phones
may be a first step to limiting crashes, but additional studies
needed to examine the specific issues associated with cell
phone use while driving (e.g., in-vehicle tasks and text mes-
saging). Also, educating the public on the risks associated
with the various cell phone uses may provide a safer environ-
ment while driving.
Royal, D., National Survey of Distracted and Drowsy
Driving, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
Washington, D.C., 2003.
The NHTSA studied the frequency of 12 distracting
behaviors that people engage in while driving. The sample
consisted of 4,010 U.S. drivers, and responses received were
self-reported. Each driver was asked to estimate the number
of trips taken each week and the frequency of distracting
activities while driving.
Participants were asked if they have had any crashes
within the last five years and whether any distractions were
involved. Of the participants who did have a crash result-
ing in damage to a vehicle, only 0.6% of crashes were
attributed to cell phone use. Table 1 includes the percent-
age of crashes resulting from various distractions.
The study found that males were more likely to use their
phone while driving than females and older participants were
less likely to use technologies (make or receive calls, change
the radio, use a navigation system, etc.) than younger counter-
parts. Of the drivers that did use cell phones while driving,
the average duration of each call was approximately 4.5 min.
Generally, most of the participants supported five pro-
posed measures to reduce the use of cell phones while driving.

13
Public awareness had the highest support at 88%, followed by
only allowing hands-free or voice-activated phones (71%),
insurance penalties for crashes that involve cell phone use
(67%), doubled or tripled fines for traffic violations
involving cell phone use, and a ban on cell phone use while
driving (57%).
Smith, D.L., J. Chang, D. Cohen, J. Foley, and P. Glassco,
A Simulation Approach for Evaluating the Relative Safety
Impact of Driver Distraction During Secondary Tasks, World
Congress on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 2005.
This study examined driver distraction and several sec-
ondary tasks that included:
â¢ Visual tasks of less than 30 s (adjusting radio, dialing a
cell phone);
â¢ Complex visual tasks equivalent to one minute (map
reading);
â¢ Auditoryâverbal tasks that were 1â2 min (listening to a
book on tape); and
â¢ Driving for 2 min without additional tasks.
A series of different visual tasks were measured in the
study by using varying visual stimuli to determine in which
cases visual stimuli present a threat. Results demonstrated
that, as the visual task difficulty increased, the drivers tended
to increase the amount of distance between their car and the
vehicle directly in front, âfalling back.â
An additional finding was that, given similar eye glance
patterns of two secondary tasks, longer lasting secondary tasks
present a greater crash risk. This was because the lead vehicle
was traveling at variable speeds (decelerating unexpect-
edly, etc.) and the distracted driver was less able to monitor
following distance during longer secondary tasks. Therefore,
assuming similar eye glance patterns, as the time to com-
plete a secondary task increases a safety threat becomes
more imminent.
World Health Organization, Mobile Phone Use: A Growing
Problem of Driver Distraction, 2011 [Online]. Available:
www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/publications/road_
traffic/en/index.html.
Reviewing worldwide road fatalities and injuries, the
report noted the risk posed by distracted driving as an
increasing concern to policymakers even while the extent
of the problem is not well known. Intended to raise aware-
ness about distracted driving, the report summarizes exist-
ing research. It focused primarily on mobile phone use, but
also on other types of distractions. The report concluded
that using a mobile phone while driving has a detrimental
effect on driving behavior, and noted the lack of conclusive
evidence that hands-free phones are safer than hand-held
units. It further noted that text messaging while driving
results in considerable physical and cognitive distraction,
reducing driving performance. The authors concluded that
more research is needed to understand the degree to which
particular aspects of mobile phone use (dialing, talking, etc.)
contribute to driver impairment.
ZoomSafer, Inc., Measuring Corporate Attitudes About
Employee Distracted Driving, 2011 [Online]. Available: http://
ZoomSafer.com/assets/Whitepapers/Survey-Results-White-
Paper.pdf.
ZoomSafer, an organization that makes software to
prevent distracted driving, surveyed 500 North American
business managers to identify corporate attitudes and best
practices related to mobile phone use among drivers. From
the overall sample, which included long-haul and short-haul
trucking companies; construction companies; utility com-
panies; taxi, limo, and bus companies; sales and service
companies; home and business services and government,
they found that 32% of all companies have knowledge or
evidence of their employees getting into vehicle crashes as
a result of cell phone distractions. When focusing solely on
trucking (long-haul and local/short-haul), findings showed
higher rates of cell phone-related crashes (53% and 41%,
respectively), but also higher levels of policy implementation
(71% and 83%, respectively) and enforcement (71% and
59%, respectively).
DRIVER TASKS UNIQUE TO
PROFESSIONAL DRIVERS
The number of studies addressing distracted driving for pro-
fessional drivers is much less than that for drivers in general.
Studies of most relevance to this project are summarized
here. The issues can be grouped into the following topics.
Problem ExtentâHow Does Distracted Driving
Relate to Crash Risk for Commercial Drivers?
Knipling et al. (2003) examined safety problem areas and
found the top three to be at-risk driving behaviors, high-risk
Distraction Percentage
Look for something outside the car 23
Dealing with children or other passengers 19
Looking for something inside the car 14
Another driver 11
Personal thoughts/thinking 5
Looking at an animal outside of the car 3
Dealing with technology (primarily radio) 2
Other distractions 23
TABLE 1
PERCENT OF CRASHES ATTRIBUTED TO DISTRACTION TYPES

drivers, and driver health and wellness. NHTSA (2010) showed
a smaller proportion of large truck drivers and bus drivers
who were distracted during a crash (8% and 6%, respec-
tively) than is the case with passenger car drivers (11%);
this has been a consistent finding over multiple years. The
Large Truck Crash Causation Study (LTCCS; FMCSA
2005) found that driver inattention was the cause in 9% of
fatal crashes, whereas 8% were the result of an external
distraction and 2% an internal distraction; these distraction
factors made it 5.1 and 5.8 times more likely for the truck
driver to be at fault in a crash. Llaneras et al. (2005) con-
ducted interviews with truck drivers and safety regulators
regarding aftermarket technology for trucks. Nearly one-
half of drivers admitted to âclose callsâ resulting from
distraction.
Traditional Distraction Sources
versus Electronic Devices
Hickman et al. (2010) examined 12 months of naturalistic
truck and bus driver data based on the DriveCam video mon-
itoring tool. Nondriving-related tasks requiring more visual
attention were found to have had the strongest association
to safety-critical events. Therefore, cell phone tasks such as
dialing sharply increased the odds ratio. At the same time,
talking or listening on a cell phone posed no increased risk
and actually had a protective effect. The researchers cau-
tion that although these effects can be associated, cause
and effect cannot be determined because of the naturalistic
nature of the study. Olson et al. (2009) combined data from
two naturalistic studies, resulting in three million miles of
kinematic and video data. This team found tertiary tasks
(i.e., tasks unnecessary to the role of driving) present in 46%
to 77% of safety-critical events, noting that these are differ-
ent conclusions from the LTCCS. Notably, cell phone con-
versations plus CB radio use was found to be protective. As
with Hickman et al. (2010), it was concluded that the mean
duration of eyes-off-road were associated with the severity
of a safety-critical event. SmartDrive (2010) examined the
most prevalent types of distractions during risky driving
maneuvers, finding that having an object in hand rates high-
est (44%), with cell phone-talking in second place (13%).
Llaneras et al. (2005) assessed specific devices, finding that
multifunctional devices were viewed favorably by respon-
dents. These can be locked out while the vehicle is in
motion if the fleet chooses; however, there is wide vari-
ability as to the use of this feature. Although interactive tech-
nologies alert drivers of developing situations and can be
potentially distracting to drivers, three FMCSA-sponsored
studies (Murray et al. 2009a,b,c) found significant net safety
benefits for active safety systems [forward collision warning
(FCW), lane departure warning (LDW), roll stability control
(RSC)]. This finding is bolstered by the American Trans-
portation Research Institute (ATRI) (2003) in which carriers
surveyed noted safety as the prime motivation for deploying
such systems.
14
How Risky Is Text Messaging While Driving?
The Olson et al. (2009) study noted earlier found that risk
was 23 times higher when texting compared with driving
normally. This was far above the next most risky behaviors
such as looking for objects or interacting with the dispatch-
ing device.
How Do Driver Practices Relate
to Distraction-Related Risk?
SmartDrive (2010) conducted a study observing 14 million
video events from more than 34,000 drivers and found that a
small number of drivers represented the majority of the driver
distraction safety problem. Although 10% of safety-critical
events involved distraction, this figure was 67% for the top
5% of drivers with the highest number of distraction events.
Drivers with the most recorded distractions were 7.4 times
more likely to be in a crash or near a crash than drivers with
the fewest recorded distractions.
Section Summary
A brief summary is provided here to encapsulate the preceding
discussion. Generally speaking, commercial drivers are less
prone to be in a distraction-related crash as compared with
the general public. The correlation of âbad appleâ commercial
drivers with distraction-related safety-critical events is signifi-
cant enough to enable fleet managers to adjust hiring practices
and training. Nevertheless, distraction appears to be a cause for
concern for all commercial drivers. As to the source of distrac-
tion, researchers have found eyes-off-road to be a more com-
pelling measure than the nature of the distraction. Relating this
to cell phones, the manual tasks are noted as risky. With respect
to hands-free phones, research findings are inconclusive.
Notably, texting is especially risky. Regarding job-related elec-
tronics, lock-out features are increasingly available to fleets.
Citation Summary
American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI) and
Gartner G2, Inc., Trucking Technology Survey Results Sum-
mary, ATRI, Arlington, Va., 2003.
Onboard technology offers motor carriers insight into in-
cab activities and driver (and vehicle) performance. According
to a survey of 150 motor carriers, improved safety is the num-
ber one reason carriers choose to deploy such technologies.
And, although a very small proportion of carriers reported
installing onboard safety systems in that survey, adoption of
in-vehicle technologies has certainly grown as the novelty has
worn off and the benefits have been demonstrated.
FMCSA, The Large Truck Crash Causation Study Summary
Report, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Wash-
ington, D.C., 2005.

15
The FMCSA and NHTSA conducted the LTCCS by inves-
tigating a nationally representative sample of 963 large truck
crashes that occurred between April 2001 and December 2003.
The investigations determined that truck driver inatten-
tion was a causal factor (as opposed to an associated factor)
in just 9% of fatal truck crashes; however, inattention made
it 17.1 times more likely that a crash would be attributed to
the truck (as opposed to a passenger vehicle or other factor).
Meanwhile, 8% of crashes were attributed to truck driver
external distraction (outside the cab) and 2% were attributed
to truck driver internal distraction (inside the cab); respec-
tively, these distraction factors made it 5.1 and 5.8 times
more likely for the truck to be at fault in a crash.
Hickman, J., R. Hanowski, and J. Bocanegra, Distraction in
Commercial Trucks and Buses: Assessing Prevalence and
Risk in Conjunction with Crashes and Near-crashes, Report
No. FMCSA-RRR-10-049, Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration, Washington, D.C., 2010.
This study analyzed 12 months of naturalistic truck and
bus driver data provided by DriveCam, whose onboard safety
monitoring systems record videos of drivers and data from
kinematic sensors on safety-related events. One data set
included data wherein kinematic sensors were activated by
nonsafety-triggered events (e.g., driving over train tracks) to
serve as a baseline in calculating odds ratios. This data set
included safety-triggered events and baseline events from
183 truck and bus fleets with 13,306 trucks and buses. Con-
cerning safety events, there were 1,085 crashes, 8,375 near
crashes, and 30,661 crash-relevant conflicts in the data set,
compared with 211,171 baseline (nonsafety) events.
Tertiary tasks (i.e., tasks unnecessary to the role of driving)
were found to have the strongest association to safety-critical
events when they demanded more visual attention. Therefore,
concerning cell phones, while talking or listening on a hands-
free cell phone posed no increased risk (and actually had a
protective effect), reaching for a phone (or headset or earpiece)
or dialing, texting, e-mailing, or using the Internet sharply
increased the odds of a safety-critical event.
A strength of naturalistic studies is the high ecological
validity, which cannot be easily replicated through simulator
studies. A weakness, however, is that, because no variables
are being manipulated, cause-and-effect inferences cannot be
made. That is, observation only revealed an increased asso-
ciation between tertiary tasks with visual components and
safety-critical event occurrence. Pertaining more specifically
to this study, another caveat is that the base rates of unwanted
tertiary behaviors were likely much lower than would be
found in the general population, because drivers knew their
behaviors were being monitored and were working for carri-
ers who were safety conscious enough to install the onboard
safety monitoring devices.
Knipling, R., J. Hickman, and G. Bergoffen, CTBSSP Syn-
thesis 1: Effective Commercial Truck and Bus Safety Man-
agement Techniques, Transportation Research Board of the
National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2003.
This synthesis report provides a summary of safety man-
agement techniques in commercial truck and bus transporta-
tion. Twenty safety problem areas and 28 safety management
techniques were identified through a literature review, discus-
sions and interviews with industry experts, and suggestions
from the TRB synthesis panel. Problem areas included both
driver and vehicle issues, and safety management techniques
ranged from driver recruiting and selection to advanced safety
technologies.
A questionnaire was distributed to fleet safety managers
and other industry safety experts through several trade asso-
ciations and industry-related professional organizations to
assess their relative importance. The top three problem areas
for safety manager respondents were found to be at-risk driving
behaviors (e.g., speeding and tailgating), high-risk drivers (all
causes combined), and driver health and wellness. The three
most common management techniques practiced by safety
managers were continuous tracking of driversâ crashes, inci-
dents, and violations; regularly scheduled vehicle inspec-
tions and maintenance; and hiring based on criteria related to
driver crash, violation, or incident history. Each of these tech-
niques was practiced by 90% or more of the safety manager
respondents.
Based on the survey results and reviewed literature, four
âsafety opportunity areasâ were selected for further research
and discussion: driver health, wellness, and lifestyle; high
risk drivers; behavioral safety management; and safety man-
agement professionalism. Several opportunities to improve
safety were identified for each area:
â¢ Driver health, wellness, and lifestyle
â Motor carrier wellness programs.
â¢ High risk drivers
â Predicting crash rate based on past behaviors, and
â Intervention programs.
â¢ Behavioral safety management
â Self-management programs,
â Driver incentive programs,
â Safety placards, and
â On-board recording.
â¢ Safety management professionalism
â Certification of fleet safety practices, and
â Certification of safety managers.
Llaneras, R.E., J.P. Singer, and R. Bowers-Carnahan, Assess-
ment of Truck Driver Distraction Problem and Research
Needs, Report No. DOT HS 809883, National Highway Traf-
fic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C., 2005.

The researchers interviewed truck drivers and safety regula-
tors to learn more about available original equipment manufac-
turers (OEM) and aftermarket technology options for trucks.
Most research on driver distraction focuses on light vehicles,
yet trucks are often the quickest to adopt new technologies.
Additionally, findings from driver distraction research con-
cerning passenger vehicles may not be fully applicable to the
trucking industry, owing to myriad differences in the types
of in-vehicle devices, device placement and design, or other
factors associated with the nature of being a professional
driver (e.g., skill, experience, and judgment). Interviewed
drivers and safety personnel were optimistic that profes-
sional truck drivers make smart decisions regarding when
and when not to use in-cab technology, although this was
highly subjective and nearly half of the drivers still admitted
to experiencing a âclose callâ resulting from distraction.
The authors also used task analysis to critically examine a
variety of available in-truck devices and gauge the quality of
their human factors design as it pertains to minimizing driver
distraction. Devices included telematic systems, safety and
warning devices, and navigation and fleet management sys-
tems, such as the following:
â¢ AutoVue Lane Departure Warning System
â¢ Bendix X-Vision (night vision system)
â¢ Delphi Truck Productivity Computer (multifunctional
device, similar to the AutoPC)
â¢ Eaton Vorad and Smart Cruise (Adaptive Cruise Control)
â¢ Freightliner Driver Message Center
â¢ Freightliner Rollover Stability Advisor
â¢ Global T-Fleet communications and tracking system
â¢ Mack VIP display (multifunctional message center)
â¢ MobileMax communications system (text messaging)
â¢ Mobiuss TTS Onboard Computer
â¢ PACCAR Driver Message Center
â¢ People Net Wireless Fleet Solutions
â¢ Qualcomm Fleet Advisor and MvPC (text-messaging)
â¢ VDO FM System
â¢ Volvo Driver Information Display and Volvo Link (text
messaging).
Multifunctional devices appeared to be particularly com-
mon in the industry, and having systems that offered both
text messaging and driver communication functions topped
the list, both for OEM and aftermarket products. As proactive
steps toward limiting distraction, many systems are customiz-
able so that fleet safety managers can decide if they want to
(completely or partially) lock out certain functions or, in
the case of messaging systems, send messages with differ-
ent levels of urgency and only allow the driver to read emer-
gency messages while the vehicle is in motion. Despite these
options, it varies widely between and even within fleets
whether these lock-out capabilities are utilized. Finally, inter-
views revealed that banning technology is viewed as impracti-
cal and unwarranted, whereas the effectiveness of policies
prohibiting the use of in-vehicle devices while driving is also
questionable. Interviewees argued that effectiveness of these
16
policies was contingent on enforcement and consistently
applied rules (with penalties for noncompliance), whereas
the key to limiting distraction from in-vehicle devices rested
on enhanced designs and interfaces and reasonably applied
restrictions and lock outs.
Murray, D., S. Shackelford, and A. Houser, Analysis of Ben-
efits and Costs of Forward Collision Warning Systems for
the Trucking Industry, Publication FMCSA-RRT-09-021,
FMCSA, U.S.DOT, Washington, D.C., 2009a.
Murray, D., S. Shackelford, and A. Houser, Analysis of
Benefits and Costs of Lane Departure Warning Systems for
the Trucking Industry, Publication FMCSA-RRT-09-022,
FMCSA, U.S.DOT, Washington, D.C., 2009b.
Murray, D., S. Shackelford, and A. Houser, Analysis of
Benefits and Costs of Roll Stability Control Systems for
the Trucking Industry, Publication FMCSA-RRT-09-020,
FMCSA, U.S.DOT, Washington, D.C., 2009c.
Although interactive technologies alert drivers of devel-
oping situations and can be potentially distracting to drivers
[e.g., forward collision warning system (FCWS) and lane
departure warning system (LDWS)], it is likely that their
net effect is to increase safety. These three studies spon-
sored by FMCSA discovered significant benefits as a result
of deploying safety systems. In one study, it was determined
that FCWS, if used nationally on all fleets, would prevent
between 8,597 and 18,013 rear-end crashes, reducing annual
injuries by 6,303 and fatalities by 103. LDWS was found
to offer similar benefits, with the potential to prevent thou-
sands of sideswipes, rollovers, and head-on collisions,
with an annual reduction of 1,973 injuries and 100 fatali-
ties. Finally, RSC systems were found capable of prevent-
ing between 1,422 and 2,037 rollovers each year, reducing
the number of injuries by 1,322 and deaths by 73. For each
$1 spent on deploying FCWS, LDWS, and RSCs, a return-
on-investment of $1.93, $1.98, and $2.33 could be expected,
respectively, with initial investments recouped within 6 to
37 months.
Olson, R.L., R.J. Hanowski, J.S. Hickman, and J. Bocanegra,
Driver Distraction in Commercial Vehicle Operations, Report
No. FMCSA-RRR-09-042, Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration, Washington, D.C., 2009.
The researchers combined data from two naturalistic stud-
ies to identify 4,452 safety-critical events and 19,888 base-
line events among 203 commercial motor vehicle (CMV)
drivers from 55 trucks belonging to 7 different fleets. In total
there were 3 million miles of continuously collected kine-
matic and video data. Tertiary tasks were determined to be
present in 46.2% to 77.5% of the safety-critical events, lead-
ing to notably different conclusions from the LTCCS. Risk
was especially elevated when drivers performed highly com-
plex tertiary tasks, such as text messaging or taking their eyes
off the road to rummage through a grocery bag (see Table 2).

Significant predictors of safety-critical events have asterisks
placed next to their odds ratios, which inform the reader how
much each behavior elevates the risk of being involved in an
event. For instance, the statistically significant odds ratio
estimate of 23.24 for text messaging means that drivers who
engage in text messaging behind the wheel are more than
23 times more likely to be involved in a safety-critical event
than drivers who do not text message behind the wheel, hold-
ing all other behaviors constant. In addition to the best esti-
mate for the odds ratio value, the table also presents 95%
confidence intervals, which indicate a range of possible odds
ratio values, with 95% certainty that the true odds ratio falls
between the lower confidence level and upper confidence
level. Therefore, although the odds ratio estimate is 23.24 for
text messaging, it may actually fall between 9.69 and 55.73,
owing to statistical uncertainty. In any case, the behavior
increases risk because it is always over the value of 1.00.
A protective effect (odds ratio below 1.00) was observed
for several tasks, including talking and listening by means of
a hands-free phone and use of the CB radio.
Olson and colleagues expanded on these findings to
demonstrate that the mean duration of eye glances away
from the road were associated with the severity of the safety-
critical event. Odds ratios suggested that long glances of
more than 2 s greatly increased the risk of a safety-critical
event; not surprisingly, behaviors with the highest odds ratios
in Table 2 were most often also behaviors associated with
taking oneâs eyes off the road.
NHTSA, Traffic Safety Facts: Distracted Driving 2009, Wash-
ington, D.C., 2010 [Online]. Available: http://www.distraction.
gov/research/PDF-Files/Distracted-Driving-2009.pdf.
Using the Fatality Accident Reporting System, NHTSAâs
National Center for Statistics and Analysis showed that a
smaller proportion of large truck drivers and bus drivers who
were distracted during a crash (8% and 6%, respectively)
than is the case with passenger car drivers (11%). This is a
consistent finding over multiple years.
SmartDrive, Commercial Fleet Distracted Driving Research
2010, 2010 [Online]. Available: http://www.smartdrive.net/
documents/smartdrive-distracted-driving-report_2010.pdf.
SmartDrive Systems, a fleet safety and efficiency solutions
company, has engaged tens of thousands of truck drivers in a
study, known as the SmartDrive Safety program, to provide
fleets a glimpse into the causes and rates of commercial driver
distraction. During 2010, SmartDrive observed nearly 14 mil-
lion video events from 34,466 commercial drivers who were
observed through in-cab video, allowing SmartDrive to cre-
ate the SmartDrive Distracted Driving Index (SDDI) as a
baseline for future comparisons.
The SDDI has revealed, among other things, that a small
minority of drivers represent the vast majority of distracted
driving problems. That is, although the study found that
18
roughly 10% of all safety-triggered events (e.g., sudden stops,
swerves, and collisions) involved a driver engaged in distracted
driving activities, this figure jumped to 67% for the top 5% of
drivers with the highest number of distraction events. Compar-
ing drivers with the most recorded distractions to drivers with
the fewest recorded distractions revealed that the former group
is 7.4 times more likely to be involved in a crash or near crash.
The nine most prevalent distractions discovered during
risky driving maneuvers were:
â¢ Object in hand (e.g., MP3 players, personal digital assis-
tants, and paperwork); 44.5%
â¢ Talking on a hand-held mobile phone; 13.4%
â¢ Beverage; 12.7%
â¢ Food; 10.1%
â¢ Smoking; 9.9%
â¢ Operating a hand-held device (e.g., texting); 9.1%
â¢ Talking and listening on mobile phone (hands-free);
5.2%
â¢ Using a map or navigation device; 1.0%
â¢ Grooming and personal hygiene; 0.6%.
COUNTERMEASURE TECHNOLOGIES FOR
DISTRACTION AND THEIR EFFECTIVENESS
Numerous research studies have investigated counter-
measure technologies for distracted driving, and the con-
sumer electronics industry is active as well. Publications of
most relevance to this project are summarized here. The
issues can be grouped into the following topics.
Combining Driver Monitoring with Driver Assistance
Lerner et al. (2008) developed a matrix that mapped 36 find-
ings to possible countermeasures for each respective finding.
Countermeasure options included public education and safety
campaigns, driver training, user interface design, functional
lock-out technology of electronic devices, and interactive
control technology, such as driver assistance systems. (Driver
assistance systems include functions such as LDW and FCW
that serve to make the driver aware of safety-critical situations
and therefore have the potential to compensate for driver
attention lapses.) Llaneras et al. (2000) reported on the results
of a NHTSA-sponsored online forum, which concluded that
driver assistance systems are useful to provide additional
âeyes and ears.â
Several studies have addressed driver monitoring to detect
distracted driving, with sensor-based collision warning sys-
tems playing a role to mitigate the momentary effects of the
distraction event. The authors clearly recognize that there
exists the possibility of a driver âgamingâ the system and
engaging in more secondary tasks knowing that there are sup-
port systems such as crash warning.
For instance, in the final report for the Intelligent Vehicle
Initiative FCW field operational test, Battelle (2007) reported

19
that driver assistance systems helped drivers keep a safe
following distance, improve reaction time, and increase
awareness when distracted. Blaschke et al. (2009) evaluated
options for managing distracted driving: block incoming
calls when aware of a complex driving situation, warn driver
of distracted conditions, or minimize negative outcomes of
distraction with support systems such as LDWS. Kircher and
AhlstrÃ¶m (2009) examined the relationship between driver
assistance systems such as FCW and LDW and driver distrac-
tion countermeasures. They noted that such systems could
warn drivers earlier, particularly when combined with eye
tracking systems that would detect eyes-off-road conditions.
Lee et al. (2000) examined the potential of FCW to mitigate
driver distraction in driving simulator experiments. The study
found that cognitive demands (speaking) pose a risk equal to
visual distractions and that the effects could be mitigated with
FCW. The authors suggest integrating detection of distraction
events with FCW to issue earlier warnings, as long as this does
not encourage the driver to increasingly engage in distracting
activities. Donmez et al. (2008) built on earlier work to demon-
strate that presenting real-time feedback to drivers on lane
position resulted in fewer distracting activities. The team rec-
ommended both retrospective and real-time feedback.
As to the technological approach to detecting driver distrac-
tion, Blaschke et al. (2009) advocates eye- or head-tracking
systems. By contrast, Zhang et al. (2008) describes work in
the SAVE-IT program to identify decrements in driving per-
formance as a result of visual distraction. The authors here
concluded that while eye-based tracking is more accurate,
head-based systems are more practical, and therefore recom-
mended moving forward with head movement sensors.
WHO (2011) notes the potential value of technological
interventions such as workload managers and LDWs; how-
ever, these technologies are seen as having a limited impact
on a global basis owing to their low market penetration.
Insurance-Links Measures to Monitor Cell Phone Use
ZoomSafer (2011b) describes both an active and passive
approach to cell phone use within a vehicle, in the context of
usage-based insurance (UBI) techniques. The active approach
connects a smartphone with a UBI device in the vehicle, such
that the smartphone is automatically deactivated when the
vehicle is in motion. The passive approach consists of integrat-
ing UBI data (including events during driving) with billing
records from the telecommunications carrier for the cell
phone, so that events can be correlated with cell phone use.
Although the active approach requires a smartphone, the pas-
sive approach works with any phone.
The Importance of Good Design
in HumanâMachine Interfaces
NHTSA (1997) took an early look at the safety implications of
cell phones, noting the cognizant risks but also highlighting the
core issue of inattentiveness. The authors contend that banning
devices is not the correct approach and good design is key.
Volpe (2008) offers a primer on technology for traffic safety,
noting that it is important to consider the humanâmachine inter-
face (HMI) when developing new safety systems, to strike the
right balance between driver assistance and distraction. Burns
(2007) presented a Transport Canada analysis of in-vehicle
devices to argue that the impetus for distraction counter-
measures lies with the designers of these devices. Llaneras et al.
(2000) reported on the results of a NHTSA-sponsored online
forum, which concluded that clearer graphics and ergonomics
are needed in vehicle cabs. The Research and Innovate Tech-
nology Administration (RITA) (2011) describes a panel con-
sisting of consumer electronics industry members held as part
of a symposium on occupationally related distracted driving. It
asserted that electronic devices can distract or assist the driver,
and lock-outs and similar features exist for professional drivers.
They noted that technology is moving in the direction of faster
touch, less touch, or no touch (speech command and control).
Vollrath and Totzke (2000) conducted driving simulator exper-
iments to determine that driving performance is at its worst
with manual tasks, followed by visual tasks, and most effective
during with auditory tasks, concluding that auditory interfaces
should be emphasized in design and, if visual/manual tasks are
needed, augment the driver with driver assistance systems.
Lee et al. (2007) described the SAVE-IT project to imple-
ment adaptive interface technology as a countermeasure to
driver distraction. The team developed models that accurately
detected cognitive distraction 75% to 95% of the time. Find-
ings suggested that listening to information is less demanding
than responding to questions, cognitive and visual demands
are additive, and cognitive distraction is multifaceted. To the
latter point, the researchers noted that cognitive distraction is
composed of distinct types with different impacts on driving
performance.
As to specific design measures, Lee and Hoffman (2004)
examined optimum methods to warn a distracted driver. They
found that graded warnings (i.e., warnings that progress from
less urgent to more urgent if the driver does not respond) were
better received than single-state warnings; also that haptic
messages were more acceptable to drivers than auditory mes-
sages. Fuller and Tsimhoni (2009) examined issues relating to
screen placement using driving simulator studies. They noted
that all screens can create distraction and showed that far-
away screens created more significant distraction issues than
screens close to the driver. Llaneras et al. (2005) conducted
interviews with commercial fleet safety managers that indi-
cated that, although lock-out functions are available for in-cab
devices, the utilization of these functions varies widely.
Section Summary
Although the combination of driver monitoring and driver
assistance systems has been shown to be effective in miti-
gating the effects of distraction, there exists the possibly of
a driver âgamingâ the system and engaging in more sec-
ondary tasks owing to the presence of a support system,

creating an opposite effect. As to the human interface, the
vehicle industry can potentially benefit from advances in
HMI from the consumer electronics industry. Research
studies have increased the knowledge base as to the inter-
action between drivers and support systems, which will be
important to the good design of these systems.
Citation Summary
Battelle, Final Report Evaluation of the Volvo Intelligent
Vehicle Initiative Field Operational Test Version 1.3, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C.,
2007.
In 1999, the U.S.DOT partnered with Volvo Trucks North
America and US Xpress to test collision warning system
(CWS), adaptive cruise control (ACC), and advanced elec-
tronic braking (AdvBS) systems in a Field Operational Test
of intelligent vehicle safety systems (IVSS) designed for
CMVs. Concerning usability of the safety systems, most
drivers agreed that CWS visual and audible signals were
always easy to see and hear; different IVSS warnings (for-
ward, side, visual, auditory) were easy to distinguish from
one another (although at times difficult owing to mental or
physical fatigue) and from non-IVSS systems in the truck.
Finally, although drivers found AdvBS useful in all con-
ditions and ACC useful aside from climbing hills or sitting in
heavy traffic, the perceived usefulness of CWS varied more.
Specifically, CWS was found to be most useful when visibil-
ity was low (e.g., during night time, foggy conditions, heavy
rain, or snow), but much more distracting in heavy traffic.
Furthermore, nearly half of all CWS warnings were deter-
mined by drivers to be false positives, which they found
annoying. Still, most drivers reported that neither the visual
nor auditory warnings caused them to be distracted from their
driving tasks, and that they did not need to look away from
the road to identify what a CWS alert meant. On the contrary,
it was reported that CWS and ACC helped them keep at a
safe following distance, improve reaction time, and increase
awareness when distracted.
Blaschke, C., B. FÃ¤rber, R. Limbacher, B. Trefflich,
F. Breyer, and S. Mayer, âOnline Estimation of the Driverâs
State Enhancement of Lane-keeping Assistance,â First Inter-
national Conference on Driver Distraction and Inattention,
Gothenburg, Sweden, Sep. 28â29, 2009.
This study evaluated three available options for managing
driver distraction, including prevention, mitigation, and mini-
mizing negative outcomes. Preventing distraction involves
the utilization of driving data (e.g., road conditions, traffic,
and weather) to determine a driverâs capacity to handle addi-
tional information. If demand on the driver is already high, then
incoming calls to the driver will be postponed or in-vehicle
information systems will be locked, so as to not overload
the driver.
20
Mitigating distraction, on the other hand, involves distrac-
tion warning systems, which issue warnings to the driver
when the system detects he or she is being distracted, with
the goal of bringing the driverâs attention back to focusing on
the road.
Finally, to minimize negative outcomes of driver distrac-
tion, the approach advocated in this paper involves using
driver assistance systems that provide a safety net in instances
of driver distraction (e.g., LDWS). These warning systems
typically generate acoustic or haptic warnings to the driver
and some advanced systems will guide the vehicle back to
the middle of the lane. However, a problem with traditional
in-vehicle systems is their hypersensitive false alarms (e.g.,
inconsequential minor deviations from the middle of the lane
or unsignaled lane changes). This paper demonstrates that
in-vehicle systems can be improved by using eye- and head-
tracking devices to recognize when the driver is visually dis-
tracted and most likely to actually need the safety system to
activate, which acts to suppress unnecessary warnings.
Burns, P.C., âDriver Distraction Countermeasures,â In
Distracted Driving, I.J. Faulks, M. Regan, M. Stevenson,
J. Brown, A. Porter, and J.D. Irwin, Eds., Australasian
College of Road Safety, Sydney, NSW, Australia, 2007.
Transport Canada investigated potential countermeasures
that could reduce the amount of unnecessary distraction drivers
face from in-vehicle telematic devices. The authors concluded
that the impetus rests with product designers, who must do
more to consider the distraction potential of their products and
increase human factors research during product design, devel-
opment, and testing phases. Essentially, designers should give
first considerations to safety and usability factors, followed
by device features, rather than the other way around.
Donmez, B., L.N. Boyle, and J.D. Lee, âMitigating Driver
Distraction with Retrospective and Concurrent Feedback,â
Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 40, 2008, pp. 776â786.
This was a follow-up study to previous work by the authors
where it was demonstrated (using a driving simulator) that
drivers engaged in fewer distracting activities (i.e., looking at
in-vehicle information systems instead of the road) when given
real-time feedback on their driving performance (e.g., lane
position). A caveat, however, is that receiving real-time feed-
back may act as an additional distraction and interfere with
task performance.
To expand on those findings, this simulator experiment
compared three feedback delivery conditions: retrospective
(i.e., end of trip) feedback, combined retrospective and con-
current (i.e., real-time) feedback, and no feedback. Accel-
erator release times were measured following unexpected
braking events by lead vehicles, and drivers in both feedback
groups (retrospective and combined feedback) outperformed
drivers receiving no feedback, as measured by significantly

21
shorter accelerator release times. Additionally, the combined
feedback group also displayed significantly longer, more sus-
tained glances to the road, leading the authors to conclude
that providing drivers with both real-time and retrospective
feedback on distraction state is an effective strategy for mit-
igating the negative effects of distraction. Although real-time
feedback is immediately helpful, an advantage of retrospec-
tive feedback is that it is less transitory and can therefore be
processed more fully by the driver, making it more likely to
actually change long-term behavior.
Fuller, H. and O. Tsimhoni, Glance Strategies for Using an
In-vehicle Touch-screen Monitor, Report No. UMTRI-2009-5,
Transportation Research Institute, University of Michigan,
Ann Arbor, 2009.
The authors consider the effects of positioning in-vehicle
devices in different vehicle locations, because nonideal loca-
tions may add to driver distraction. Both visual and motor
demands of nonessential tertiary tasks were considered simul-
taneously by means of using a touch-screen monitor to per-
form the tertiary task and varying the location of the monitor.
Driving simulator participants were instructed to focus their
efforts primarily on following a lead vehicle that was sporad-
ically speeding up and slowing down; additionally, they were
instructed to perform the tertiary task on the touch-screen
monitor.
Performance on the primary task (following the lead vehi-
cle) was worse for all participants who performed the sec-
ondary task compared with those who did not, regardless of
touch-screen position. Performance on the secondary task,
however, predictably varied depending on the position of the
touch-screen. More difficult positions (where participants had
to reach farther and look farther to the side of their normal line
of sight) resulted in longer times to completion for the sec-
ondary task and more frequent glances to the monitor than
when the monitor was in an ideally located position. It is
therefore concluded that in-vehicle devices that require driver
interactions should be placed closer to the driver, because
placing them farther away takes more attention off the road.
Kircher, K. and C. AhlstrÃ¶m, âIssues Related to the Driver
Distraction Detection Algorithm AttenD,â First Inter-
national Conference on Driver Distraction and Inattention,
Gothenburg, Sweden, Sep. 28â29, 2009.
Most applications of driver support systems attempt to help
the driver when a critical safety event is unavoidable. Improve-
ments to FCWS, LDWS, and others could be found by pro-
viding earlier warnings, although this would further increase
the number of false alarms. On the other hand, the systems
could be improved by taking driver state into account and
acting only when an increased risk presents itself. Options for
this latter approach could include pressure-sensitive steering
wheel sensors, breath analyzers, live video feeds, or automatic
eye tracking.
Because eye tracking can now be done unobtrusively, the
authors chose this approach and described AttenD, an algo-
rithm for detecting visual distraction in real time based on
sustained single or repetitive glances away from the road.
Essentially, AttenD uses a 2-s time buffer that depletes as
drivers look away from the road and replenishes when eyes
come back to the road. When the buffer is empty, the driver
is classified as distracted. The buffer takes into account
necessary acts of driving, such as checking mirrors or the
speedometer, which do not count against the buffer until
after a 1-s grace period.
Logical applications of AttenD involve issuing warnings
to drivers determined to be in a distracted state. One possibil-
ity is to warn drivers every time they use up their 2-s buffer, so
as to train the driver not to look away from the road so often.
Otherwise, the distraction information could be fused with
other in-vehicle systems such as FCWS and LDWS to more
accurately identify when safety-critical events are probable. In
contrast to the former option, using AttenD to minimize false
warnings of other safety systems will not train the driver to
focus his or her attention on the road and may actually have
the opposite effect, teaching the driver to trust other systems
to activate warning messages when dire situations arise.
Lee, J.D. and J.D. Hoffman, âCollision Warning Design to
Mitigate Driver Distraction,â SIGCHI Conference on Human
Factors in Computing Systems, Vienna, Austria, Apr. 24â29,
2004.
The authors evaluated what type of warning delivery sys-
tem is the most effective and accepted in warning distracted
drivers. Experiments were conducted requiring participants
to interact with an in-vehicle e-mail system while a FCWS
alerted drivers to a braking lead vehicle.
Concerning alert strategy, graded warnings (where warn-
ing intensity is proportional to threat severity) were better
received than single-stage warnings (where warnings were
issued in an identical fashion when a predetermined severity
threshold was crossed). Concerning alert modality, haptic
messages (e.g., vibrating seats) were more accepted by drivers
than auditory messages.
Lee, J., M. Reyes, Y. Liang, and Y.C. Lee, SAfety VEhicles
Using Adaptive Interface Technology: Algorithms to Assess
Cognitive Distraction, Volpe National Transportation Systems
Center, Cambridge, Mass., 2007.
To proactively address the issue of driver distraction, a
program known as SAfety VEhicle(s) using adaptive Inter-
face Technology (SAVE-IT) was created to identify effec-
tive countermeasures to distraction and improve on existing
safety warning systems. This paper describes Task 5 of the
SAVE-IT program, which attempted to develop an algorithm
capable of identifying declines in driving performance as a
result of cognitive distraction.

The researchers developed models that accurately detected
cognitive distraction 75% to 95% of the time. Findings sug-
gested, among other things, that listening to IVIS information
is less demanding than responding to questions about it; cog-
nitive and visual demands are additive; and cognitive distrac-
tion is multifaceted (i.e., distinct types of cognitive distraction
have different impacts on driving performance).
Lee, J.D., M.L. Ries, D.V. McGehee, and T.L. Brown, âCan
Collision Warning Systems Mitigate Distraction Due to
In-vehicle Devices?â NHTSA Driver Distraction Internet
Forum, July 5âAug. 11, 2000.
Because driver inattention/distraction is a contributing
factor in more than 60% of all vehicle rear-end collisions,
this study looked at the effectiveness of a rear-end collision
avoidance system, better known today as a FCWS. A driving
simulator was used to determine how well drivers, distracted
or otherwise, could avoid an impending collision with FCWS
assistance, utilizing either early or late warnings.
The experiment found that the cognitive demands (e.g.,
speaking into a phone or two-way radio) that do not take a
driverâs hands off the wheel or eyes off the road still pose a
serious risk nearly equal to that from visual distractions. How-
ever, both of these risks can be effectively mitigated with early
warnings from an FCWS. The authors suggest that in-vehicle
devices that distract attention away from the road be integrated
or coordinated with warning systems that will detect distrac-
tion and signal imminent danger (e.g., issue earlier warnings
if the driver is on the phone). An obvious caveat, however, is
that drivers could become passive and overreliant on warning
systems to detect critical safety events, increasing a willing-
ness to engage in distracting activities and lowering vigilance.
Lerner, N., J. Singer, and R. Huey, Driver Strategies for
Engaging in Distracting Tasks Using In-vehicle Technolo-
gies, Report No. HS DOT 810919, National Highway Traf-
fic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C., 2008.
The purpose and findings of this study were cited earlier.
Based on the studyâs findings, the authors developed a
matrix that mapped 36 findings to possible countermeasures
for each respective finding. Countermeasure options included
ideas related to public education and safety campaigns, driver
training, user interface design, functional lock-out technology,
and interactive control (i.e., Driver Assist) technology.
Llaneras, R.E., NHTSA Driver Distraction Internet Forum:
Summary and Proceedings, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, Washington, D.C., 2000.
A virtual online conference was held to assess the dangers
associated with the massive growth in the availability of in-car
devices (e.g., cell phones, navigation systems, wireless Inter-
net, information systems, entertainment systems, and night
22
vision systems). Benefits and safety risks are evaluated, along-
side ways to measure distraction and implement user-friendly
design features or solutions. Participants took issue with
systems using poorly labeled and difficult to reach multi-
functional controls.
From a structural standpoint, suggestions for improvement
included the use of standardized steering wheel-mounted
controls, graphic icons, integrated designs, and easy-to-reach,
easy-to-distinguish buttons. Concerning usability, participants
discussed hands-free options, lock-out functions, and speech-
based or voice recognition technologies, although this was a
topic of debate, because cognitive demands present similar
(although somewhat lower) levels of distraction as visual or
motor demands.
Although the complete automation of vehicles would gen-
erate an obvious solution to the driver distraction problem,
the foreseeable future will only allow a partial realization of
driverless automation technology. Two recognizable options
for the present include vehicle systems that provide âaddi-
tional eyes and earsâ to the driver (e.g., collision warning sys-
tems) and driver assistance systems that assume some limited
driving tasks (e.g., adaptive cruise control).
Llaneras, R.E., J.P. Singer, and R. Bowers-Carnahan, Assess-
ment of Truck Driver Distraction Problem and Research
Needs, Report No. DOT HS 809883, National Highway Traf-
fic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C., 2005
As mentioned, multifunctional devices appear to be par-
ticularly common in the industry, and having systems that
offer both text messaging and driver communication func-
tions top the list, both for OEM and aftermarket products. As
proactive steps toward limiting distraction, many systems are
customizable so that fleet safety managers can decide if they
want to (completely or partially) lock out certain functions
or, in the case of messaging systems, send messages with dif-
ferent levels of urgency and only allow the driver to read
emergency messages while the vehicle is in motion. Despite
these options, it varies widely between and even within fleets
whether these lock-out capabilities are used. Finally, inter-
views revealed that banning technology is viewed as imprac-
tical and unwarranted, whereas the effectiveness of policies
prohibiting the use of in-vehicle devices while driving is also
questionable. Interviewees argued that the effectiveness of
these policies was contingent on enforcement and consistently
applied rules (with penalties for noncompliance), whereas
the key to limiting distraction from in-vehicle devices rested
on enhanced designs and interfaces and reasonably applied
restrictions and lock outs.
NHTSA, An Investigation of the Safety Implications of Wire-
less Communication in Vehicles, National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, Washington, D.C., 1997.
The authors of this study recognized that the use of a cell
phone while driving may contribute to collisions. However,

23
it was stated that it is both the physical movement associated
with dialing and holding a phone as well as the cognitive
processes that coincide with the phone conversation. It was
also proposed that hands-free devices may assist drivers, but
may lead to longer conversations and the increased likeli-
hood of a crash. Also, the key factor is not just using a cell
phone, but driver inattentiveness while driving.
This study makes several key suggestions to improving
the safety of drivers who use cell phones. The authors make
it clear that cell phone-related accidents cannot decrease by
simply banning the devices. Instead, in-vehicle communica-
tion systems could be developed that allow the user to wire-
lessly communicate with fewer distractions. In addition,
some of the other recommendations included:
â¢ Enforcing inattentive behavior issues,
â¢ Improving the range of cell phone-related research to
more specifically define the problem,
â¢ Broadening consumer education about using a cell phone
while driving, and
â¢ Developing the most ideal in-vehicle communication
systems using the National Advanced Driver Simulator.
Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA),
âIn-vehicle Technology to Address Distracted Driving,â Sym-
posium on Prevention of Occupationally-Related Distracted
Driving, Johns Hopkins Education and Research Center for
Occupational Safety and Health, Laurel, Md., Apr. 18, 2011.
Panelists from the consumer electronics industry described
how, while technology can distract drivers (e.g., cell phones,
entertainment systems, and navigation and information sys-
tems), it can also be used to help mitigate distraction. Tech-
nology of the latter classification includes lock outs (e.g., not
allowing incoming calls, texts, or e-mails while the vehicle is
in motion), warning notifications (i.e., when a high level of
risk is detected), and other advances that reduce the amount of
necessary interaction (whether visual, manual, or cognitive)
drivers must engage in with on-board systems or devices.
A critical attribute of new, seemingly useful technologies
is how much driver workload they require. Human factors
specialists need to keep best practices in mind when design-
ing new technologies so that they do not overload the driver
and increase the possibility of distraction.
Certain types of distraction (e.g., searching for street signs)
can be circumvented with hardware (GPS unit) and software
(text to speech). Similarly, hands-free devices are intended
to prevent distractions that would take a driverâs hands off
the wheel; this technology can incorporate ear buds, Blue-
tooth, steering wheel controls, and/or voice recognition soft-
ware. Essentially, technology is moving in the direction of
faster touch (e.g., predictive text, next word prediction, logic
and algorithms), less touch (hybrid text and speech entry), or
no touch (speech command and control).
Vollrath, M. and I. Totzke, In-vehicle Communication and
Driving: An Attempt to Overcome Their Interference, Cen-
ter for Traffic Sciences, University of Wuerzburg, Germany,
2000.
Multiple Resources Theory dictates that in-vehicle com-
munications using different channels (i.e., manual operations,
visual or auditory information processing) will differentially
impact driving performance. The authors performed a mixed
betweenâwithin subject driving simulator experiment to
demonstrate that all three of these tertiary communication
tasks cause decrements in driving performance. However,
performance is at its worst with the manual operation task,
followed by the visual information processing task and the
auditory information processing task.
Based on these findings, the authors suggested that infor-
mation should be presented to drivers acoustically whenever
possible. Visual output should be avoided or else be accom-
panied by a driver assistance system that ensures that the
vehicle maintains its lane position (e.g., LDWS). Finally,
unnecessary manual operations are by far the least desir-
able component in terms of distraction and risk, most likely
because this category typically contains some extent of visual
information processing. If motor actions are required, they
should be accompanied by a driver assistance system that
maintains both lane position and following distance (e.g.,
LDWS and FCWS).
Volpe National Transportation Systems Center and Research
and Innovative Technology Administration, Technology
Applications for Traffic Safety Programs: A Primer, Report
No. DOT HS 811 040, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, Cambridge, Mass., 2008.
The authors reviewed emerging digital and communica-
tion technology that is either currently or soon to be available
to improve highway safety. Highlighted traffic safety tech-
nologies include those that provide information and services
to drivers, traffic operations agencies, emergency services per-
sonnel, and law enforcement professionals. Specifically, vehi-
cle to driver, vehicle to vehicle, vehicle to and from roadside,
and vehicle to and from traffic and emergency call centers
are all discussed.
The report emphasizes the importance of considering
the HMI when developing new safety technologies, so that
the right balance is struck between delivering desired infor-
mation and minimizing driver distraction. For instance, care-
ful consideration must be given to the placement of safety
devices and the manner of information delivery.
World Health Organization, Mobile Phone Use: A Growing
Problem of Driver Distraction 2011 [Online]. Available: www.
who.int/violence_injury_prevention/publications/road_traffic/
en/index.html.

In this report, the challenges of assessing the extent of the
distracted driving problem are noted, given the differences in
police reporting and crash data coding related to distracted
driving. As to countermeasures, the need for extended public
awareness campaigns are seen as important to increase pub-
lic understanding of the risks of driving while distracted. The
potential value of technological interventions, such as work-
load managers and LDW, is noted but viewed as having a
limited impact at this time. The report concludes by issuing a
call to governments to be proactive in setting policy, using
the current state of knowledge, as failure to act now could
make it more difficult to address the issues at a later point.
Zhang, H., M. Smith, and R. Dufour, A Final Report of
SAfety VEhicles Using Adaptive Interface Technology: Visual
Distraction, Volpe National Transportation Systems Center,
Cambridge, Mass., 2008.
This paper describes Task 7 of the SAVE-IT program,
which focused on methods for identifying decrements in
driving performance owing to visual distraction. Although
eye-based measures are slightly more accurate in identify-
ing distraction than head-based measures, the latter option
is more practical; that is, the necessary sensors for detecting
eye gaze movement are more expensive and suffer from cer-
tain limitations (e.g., interference from eyewear), whereas
head-movement sensors are cheaper and easier to implement.
Because most severe visual distractions are likely to be cap-
tured by head movement sensors (i.e., sustained eye gazes
that are farther off to the side), the researchers suggested
moving forward with this type of technology.
ZoomSafer Inc., Beyond Telematics: Extending UBI Data to
Include Mobile Phone Use While Driving, 2011b [Online].
Available: http://zoomsafer.com/resources/#1.
ZoomSafer describes both an active and passive approach
to cell phone use within a vehicle, in the context of UBI tech-
niques. The active approach consists of UBI software resident
on a smartphone (an âappâ), which connects with a UBI device
in the insuredâs vehicle. The smartphone is automatically
deactivated when the vehicle is in motion, and incoming texts
and messages are automatically responded to by the applica-
tion to indicate the user is driving. The passive approach con-
sists of integrating UBI data (including events during driving)
with billing records from the telecommunications carrier for
the cell phone, so that events can be correlated with cell phone
use. Although the active approach requires a smartphone, the
passive approach works with any phone.
OPERATIONAL STRATEGIES AND
RECOMMENDED PRACTICES
A wide range of operational practices have been studied and
put into place to address distracted driving and some recom-
mended practices have emerged. Studies of most relevance to
24
this project are summarized here. The issues can be grouped
into the following topics.
Examination of Company Safety Practices
Hickman et al. (2007) examined behavior-based safety pro-
grams common in some industries, but which have not seen
wide use within the trucking industry. Surveys of motor
carrier safety managers indicated that driver observation and
feedback programs, plus ride-alongs, are most important.
Short et al. (2007) examined the means of mitigating dis-
tracted driving through an organizationâs safety culture. For
instance, a strong safety culture may have internal definitions
and messages related to distracted driving, which may be part
of training and employee communications. The authorâs key
point for this concept was that focus on the safety message
must exist from top to bottom within the organization. Simi-
larly, Network of Employers for Traffic Safety (NETS) (2011)
describes a panel discussion of model distracted driving pro-
grams, which involved representatives from major private
fleets. Panel members also discussed the importance of top
management buy-in plus clearly communicating policies,
including consequences for disobeying. They also reported
on safety videos and post-incident coaching tools and met-
rics as being useful. Lueck and Murray (2011) interviewed
safety executives from major carriers and identified the fol-
lowing common attributes of effective safety management:
well-defined policies and strategies, engaged safety direc-
tors, a willingness to test new methods and systems (such as
active safety), training (and remedial training for problem
drivers), and direct involvement in developing company
safety strategy.
Employees: Hiring, Training, and Well-Being
ATAF (1999) examined the safety practices of award-winning
carriers and noted the following key factors: having satisfied
employees, hiring the right people, training and monitoring
these individuals, and using quality control measures. Mejza
et al. (2003) identified 148 high-performing carriers with
respect to safety and surveyed them as to their safety manage-
ment programs and practices. Regardless of fleet size, they
pointed to extensive hiring and training practices, multiple
methods for evaluating those practices, and driver rewards
for positive safety records. Knipling et al. (2003) examined
28 safety management techniques, the most common of which
were tracking of driverâs incidents, violations, and crashes;
regular vehicle inspection and maintenance; and hiring based
on safety criteria. They also identified four safety opportunity
areas: motor carrier wellness programs, predicting crash rates
based on past behaviors, behavioral safety management,
and safety management professionalism. In a TRB synthe-
sis report, Staplin et al. (2005) examined driver training pro-
grams that have the greatest potential for improving safety.
Several recommended practices were noted, including mini-
mum industry requirements for entry-level drivers, the use of

25
driving simulators and skid pads in training, and multimedia
and video techniques.
Cell Phone Prohibition Policies
In a highway safety guide prepared for states, NHTSA (2011)
gave cell phone bans a low effectiveness rating based on
studies showing that cell phone use rates revert to the base-
line after a year unless there is sustained enforcement of
these laws. However, the Governors Highway Safety Asso-
ciation (GHSA) (2011) noted that cell phone bans, while
their effectiveness is not entirely clear, do have some long-
term effect. They called on states to enforce cell phone laws
once passed and to establish assistance programs to help
employers implement effective policies.
ZoomSafer (2011a) conducted a general survey of 500 busi-
ness managers and noted that, although 32% of the companies
have had instances of crashes linked to driver distraction,
only 62% have cell policies, with 53% actually enforcing it.
For trucking, depending on operational focus, the occur-
rence of distraction-related crashes was 41% to 53%, with
71% to 83% having policies on cell phone use, and 59% to
71% actively enforcing the policy. Hickman et al. (2010)
examined truck and bus driver data from a DriveCam and
found that truck and bus drivers operating with a company
prohibition on cell phone use were 0.83 times less likely to
use the device, whereas driving in a state that prohibited
cell phone use while driving had no effect.
Section Summary
At the company level, clarity within the organization as
to safety culture and clear messages are important. At the
employee level, careful hiring, thorough training, attending to
wellness, driver rewards, and remedial practices when inci-
dents occur are all important parts of the puzzle. And, while
the value of laws prohibiting cell phone use is not clear, at
least one study has demonstrated that company prohibitions
on cell phone use do inhibit a driverâs use of the devices.
Citation Summary
ATAF, Safe Returns: A Compendium of Injury Reduction and
Safety Management Practices of Award-winning Carriers,
American Trucking Associations Foundations, Alexandria,
Va., 1999.
This study analyzed interview and survey responses of
safety managers in outstanding TL, LTL, private, and special-
ized fleets to identify various management âtools for success.â
Because safe operations feed into financial stability, produc-
tivity, and customer and employee retention, all aspects of
operations were examined: hiring; training, and supervi-
sion; bonus and awards programs; maintenance and equip-
ment; safety meetings; work environment; and accident
investigations. Conclusions included the finding that satis-
fied and committed employees are one of the keys to safety,
and employees would therefore be included in important
decisions and rewarded or recognized for their performance.
Safety begins with hiring the right people, training them suf-
ficiently, supervising or monitoring them to ensure proper
performance, and using quality control program to mini-
mize the potential for safety incidents.
Governors Highway Safety Association, Distracted Drivingâ
What Research Shows and What States Can Do, 2011 [Online].
Available: www.ghsa.org.
This report summarizes distracted driving research to
inform states as they consider distracted driving counter-
measures, concentrating on distractions produced by cell
phones, texting, and other electronic devices. The report con-
cludes that cell phone use increases crash risk, but there is
no consensus on the degree of increase, and that conclusive
evidence does not exist as to whether hand-held cell phone use
is riskier than hands-free. As to countermeasures, the report
found that laws banning hand-held cell phone use are effective
initially even though the effect lessens over time; however,
the laws do appear to have some long-term effect. At the same
time, it noted there is no evidence that cell phone or texting
bans have reduced the number of crashes. The reportâs recom-
mendations include that states enact cell phone and texting
bans for novice drivers, existing cell phone and texting laws
be enforced, public awareness programs be implemented, and
states assist employers to develop and implement distracted
policies.
Hickman, J., R. Hanowski, and J. Bocanegra, Distraction
in Commercial Trucks and Buses: Assessing Prevalence and
Risk in Conjunction with Crashes and Near-crashes, Report
No. FMCSA-RRR-10-049, Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration, Washington, D.C., 2010.
This study analyzed 12 months of naturalistic truck and
bus driver data provided by DriveCam, whose onboard safety
monitoring systems record videos of drivers and data from
kinematic sensors on safety-related events. One data set
included data whereby kinematic sensors were triggered by
nonsafety triggered events (e.g., driving over train tracks) to
serve as a baseline in calculating odds ratios.
Truck and bus drivers operating under a fleet cell phone
policy were 0.83 times less likely to use a cell phone, whereas
driving in a state that prohibited cell phone use while driving
had no effect on driversâ decisions to use their phones behind
the wheel (odds ratio = 0.97, ns).
Hickman, J., R. Knipling, R. Hanowski, D. Wiegand,
R. Inderbitzen, and G. Bergoffen, CTBSSP Synthesis 11:
Impact of Behavior-Based Safety Techniques on Commercial

Motor Vehicle Drivers, Transportation Research Board of
the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2007.
This synthesis report documents various Behavior-Based
Safety (BBS) strategies that reduce risky driving behaviors
in CMV drivers. Several studies have reported that specific
driving behaviors are significant contributing factors in many
crashes.
Motor carrier safety managers were surveyed to obtain
information on which strategies were currently being used, as
well as their opinions on the effectiveness of those strategies.
Findings from the extensive literature review and survey indi-
cated that although BBS techniques have been widely used in
other industrial workplaces, comprehensive BBS programs
have not been extensively used in the trucking industry. The
lack of more complete programs is most likely the result of the
solitary nature of the occupation and the difficulty in observ-
ing accurate, unbiased, safety-critical behaviors.
The majority of survey participants indicated that some
type of observation technique was used to assess driversâ
behavior, including peer observation and feedback (63%),
ride-alongs (59%), covert observations (37%), and self-
observation (32%). The highest rated BBS technique by
respondents was a targeted training approach and education
programs directed at specific driving behaviors.
Knipling, R., J. Hickman, and G. Bergoffen, CTBSSP Syn-
thesis 1: Effective Commercial Truck and Bus Safety Man-
agement Techniques, Transportation Research Board of the
National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2003.
This synthesis report provides a summary of safety man-
agement techniques in commercial truck and bus transporta-
tion. Twenty safety problem areas and 28 safety management
techniques were identified through a literature review, dis-
cussions and interviews with industry experts, and sugges-
tions from the TRB synthesis panel. Problem areas included
both driver and vehicle issues, and safety management tech-
niques ranged from driver recruiting and selection to advanced
safety technologies.
A questionnaire was distributed to fleet safety managers
and other industry safety experts through several trade asso-
ciations and industry-related professional organizations to
assess their relative importance. The top three problem areas
for safety manager respondents were found to be at-risk driving
behaviors (e.g., speeding and tailgating), high-risk drivers (all
causes combined), and driver health and wellness. The three
most common management techniques practiced by safety
managers were continuous tracking of driversâ crashes, inci-
dents, and violations; regularly scheduled vehicle inspec-
tions: and maintenance and hiring based on criteria related
to driver crash, violation, or incident history. Each of these
26
techniques was practiced by 90% or more of the safety man-
ager respondents.
Based on the survey results and reviewed literature, four
âsafety opportunity areasâ were selected for further research
and discussion: driver health, wellness, and lifestyle; high-
risk drivers; behavioral safety management; and safety man-
agement professionalism. Several opportunities to improve
safety were identified for each area:
â¢ Driver health, wellness, and lifestyle
â Motor carrier wellness programs.
â¢ High risk drivers
â Predicting crash rate based on past behaviors, and
â Intervention programs.
â¢ Behavioral safety management
â Self-management programs,
â Driver incentive programs,
â Safety placards, and
â On-board recording.
â¢ Safety management professionalism
â Certification of fleet safety practices, and
â Certification of safety managers.
Lueck, M.D. and D.C. Murray, Predicting Truck Crash
Involvement: A 2011 Update, American Transportation
Research Institute, Alexandria, Va., 2011.
Recognizing the responsibilities and roles that motor
carriers can play in managing driver behavior, ATRI inter-
viewed safety executives from major reputable carriers to
identify effective industry strategies that could potentially
help prevent and mitigate dangerous driver behaviors. The
interview questions were designed to solicit information on
safety programs, tools, and training strategies that effectively
target identified problem behaviors and events.
Based on surveys and in-depth interviews conducted with
these safety directors, it became clear that safety-oriented
trucking companies had several common attributes. These
included:
â¢ Clear, documented, and well-distributed policies and
strategies relating to specific driver behaviors and
events;
â¢ Accessible and engaged safety directors and managers;
a willingness to test and/or use different training tools
and onboard safety systems; and
â¢ Direct involvement in the development or customiza-
tion of company safety programs and policies.
During the interview process each of the carriers also
emphasized that proactive safety measures, such as initial
and orientation and sustainment training, are key lynchpins

27
to ensuring that negative safety incidents do not occur. The
value of these safety programs, however, must be comple-
mented by remedial safety training programs that mitigate a
problem driver behavior after a negative safety incident has
occurred.
Mejza, M.C., R.E. Barnard, T.M. Corsi, and T. Keane,
Best Highway Safety Practices: A Survey of the Safest
Motor Carriers About Safety Management Practices, Fed-
eral Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Washington,
D.C., 2003.
This study used federal safety ratings to identify 148 high-
performing carriers. Researchers then surveyed these compa-
niesâ safety management programs and policies, including
detailed questions about carrier, driver, and vehicle-related
practices. Most questions centered on hiring, training, and
supportive or motivational activities. Some of their survey
findings were disaggregated by fleet size into three cate-
gories: small (1â24 trucks), medium (25â94 trucks), and large
(95+ trucks); however, they all pointed toward extensive
hiring and training practices, multiple methods for evaluat-
ing those practices, and a wide array of rewards to encour-
age drivers to have positive safety records. For instance, more
than 90% of good carriers reported verbally praising safe
drivers, whereas 72% used public recognition and 66% used
cash rewards.
Network of Employers for Traffic Safety (NETS), âEle-
ments of Model Distracted Driving Programs,â Sympo-
sium on Prevention of Occupationally-Related Distracted
Driving, 2011.
NETS panel members (e.g., ExxonMobil, Coca-Cola, and
Johnson and Johnson) representing 52,000 fleet vehicles and
1 billion miles driven discussed key topics related to address-
ing distracted driving, including cell phone use policies, imple-
mentation and sustainability, technology, and critical success
factors. From a 2010 NETS benchmarking report, 93% of
NETS members have a cell phone policy in place, 40% have
a total ban in place, 57% permit only hands-free use, and
2% ban only texting. When policy violations occur, 67% of
NETS members discipline the driver and 21% terminate
him or her.
Panel members discussed the importance of clearly com-
municating distracted driving policies so that all employees
are educated and fully aware of the issue, as well as conse-
quences for disobeying the policy. Buy-in and total support
from top management is crucial, and good behaviors must
be reinforced to create a strong safety culture. Some useful
strategies include using safety videos and safety information
available on the companyâs website. Additionally, compa-
nies can be prepared to deal with incidents by having a post-
incident coaching tool (or metric) that addresses potential
distraction issues that could have played a role in the safety-
critical event.
NHTSA, Countermeasures That Work: A Highway Safety
Countermeasure Guide for State Highway Safety Offices,
6th ed., National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
Washington, D.C., 2011.
This guide was created as a reference to help State
Highway Safety Offices select empirically proven counter-
measures when addressing major highway safety problem
areas, including distracted driving. As part of the analysis
the authors describe the use, effectiveness, costs, and imple-
mentation time required for each prospective countermeasure,
citing the most recent and accurate literature, where relevant.
Empirical support for the ratings listed here can be found
in NHTSAâs guide (see Table 3). For instance, cell phone
laws are given a poor rating because studies show cell phone
use among drivers returning to baseline levels within a year
of a law going into place, unless the law was accompanied by
sustained, tough enforcement targeting violators. Likewise,
general laws and company policies are ineffective if they
simply send a generic âstay alertâ message. Drivers already
know what behaviors are not smart, but they will continue to
occasionally engage in them unless they are strictly moni-
tored and held accountable.
Short, J., L. Boyle, S. Shackelford, B. Inderbitzen, and
G. Bergoffen, CTBSSP Synthesis 14: The Role of Safety
Culture in Preventing Commercial Motor Vehicle Crashes,
Transportation Research Board of the National Academies,
Washington, D.C., 2007.
The authors reviewed methods for improving safety cul-
ture through changes in an organizationâs safety policies,
values, attitudes, and norms. Although the safety culture con-
cept is much broader in scope than individual safety issues,
the problem of distracted driving can likely be mitigated
through an organizationâs safety culture.
The research indicated that an organization with a strong
safety culture will identify distracted driving issues through
an awareness of organizational beliefs and behaviors and
through knowledge of safety performance data and informa-
tion. Once identified, aspects of distracted driving will likely
be addressed in several ways within a safe culture.
First, an organization with a strong safety culture might
create internal definitions and messages related to the dis-
tracted driving problem and disseminate such information
throughout the company. The distracted driving message
may be part of initial and ongoing training within the organi-
zation, and might also be found as part of regular safety mes-
sages that are communicated to employees. It is also likely,

within a strong safety culture, that members of a trucking
companyâs leadership disseminate information and messages
to drivers on the importance of preventing distracted driving
situations. The message should be delivered through other
areas of the organization as well; for example, dispatchers may
ask drivers if bills have been paid prior to extensive travel as a
means to avoid cognitive distractions. Thus, the key point of
this concept is that a safety message, such as one that addresses
distracted driving, flow from the very top of the organization
and be pervasive throughout the organization.
Staplin, L., K. Loccoco, L. Decina, and G. Bergoffen, CTBSSP
Synthesis 5: Training of Commercial Motor Vehicle Drivers,
Transportation Research Board of the National Academies,
Washington, D.C., 2005.
This synthesis report focuses on several training tools and
techniques used in existing driver training programs and
identifies those that appear to have the greatest potential for
improving CMV safety. A review of available literature was
done to pinpoint which training techniques work (and which
do not) to adequately train CMV drivers to perform in vari-
ous situations. Information was also obtained from several
truck driving schools and truck and bus companies to supple-
ment the literature findings.
28
Several recommended practices for improving driver
safety performance were identified in the report, including:
â¢ Implementing industry-wide use of standards put for-
ward by the Professional Truck Driving Institute as a
minimum requirement for entry-level drivers and for
the certification of driver trainers.
â¢ Requiring finishing training for first seat (solo) drivers.
â¢ Substituting multimedia instruction materials to better
engage students and reduce training costs through dis-
tance learning.
â¢ Introducing or expanding the use of driving simulators.
â¢ Expanding the use of skid pads to train beginning drivers
about stopping distances under different load configu-
rations; to use different brake systems [including all
anti-lock brake (ABS), mixed ABS, and non-ABS], and
to experience the consequences of driving on a wet sur-
face for handling and stopping the vehicle, including
skid control.
â¢ Employing videos and testimonials by experienced
drivers to provide entry-level trainees with a realistic
orientation to health, wellness, and lifestyle issues.
ZoomSafer, Inc., Measuring Corporate Attitudes About
Employee Distracted Driving, 2011 [Online]. Available:
TABLE 3
EXCERPT FROM NHTSA HIGHWAY SAFETY COUNTERMEASURE GUIDE

29
http://ZoomSafer.com/assets/Whitepapers/Survey-Results-
White-Paper.pdf.
ZoomSafer, an organization that develops software to
prevent distracted driving, surveyed 500 North American
business managers to identify corporate attitudes and best
practices related to mobile phone use among drivers. From
the overall sample, which included long-haul and short-haul
trucking companies; construction companies; utility compa-
nies; taxi, limo, and bus companies; sales and service com-
panies; home and business services; and government, they
found that 32% of all companies have knowledge or evi-
dence of their employees having vehicle crashes as a result of
cell phone distractions. Despite this, only 62% of the compa-
nies had a written cell phone policy in place and only 53% of
companies with a policy actually enforced it, with 61% dis-
ciplining employees after a crash or incident and only 2%
proactively utilizing technology to manage compliance.
When focusing solely on trucking (long-haul and local/
short-haul), findings showed higher rates of cell phone-related
crashes (53% and 41%, respectively), but also higher levels
of policy implementation (71% and 83%, respectively) and
enforcement (71% and 59%, respectively).

Welcome to OpenBook!

You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.